Tag Archives: Justice

Why does all of this, including Charlotte Proudman’s response, leave me so uneasy?

In case you haven’t read about it, Charlotte Proudman published a “LinkedIn” e-mail message from Alexander Carter-Silk, a very prominent solicitor, branded him sexist and misogynistic and is calling for a public apology.

I have read and watched a lot of the reporting of this issue and I notice that just the first part of the message is being shown in most of the reports.

“Charlotte, delighted to connect, I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture!!!”

Now, in the ordinary run of things this isn’t a lot to worry about, but he then continues with,

“You definitely win the prize for the best LinkedIn picture I have ever seen. Always interest [sic] to understant [sic] people’s skills and how we might work together.”

Yeah, right. “The Prize”?? WTF. Does this man have NO sense whatsoever? I question his ability to cross the road unaided.

Then we have Matthew Scott, a solicitor and blogger, wade in with the following comments,

“I think we have to look how this developed… Charlotte sent him a message, asking him to connect so the initial contact was made by Charlotte. He later complimented her stunning picture, so I do think his crime is provoked from Charlotte.”

I wonder what this man’s attitude to rape is? Might he think women provoke men into this crime too? And then to top it all he says,

“If a man wanted to approach a woman because he thinks her attractive… it doesn’t make him sexist. It is just perfectly natural behaviour”

Matthew Scott

Really Matthew, even if this man is married and this man’s position makes it, at the very least, “awkward” to refuse or rebuff? What utter crap!

Charlotte’s asking to “connect” on LinkedIn was a “provocation” according to Matthew, but Mr Carter-Silk’s response was “perfectly natural”.

Dear God almighty! And these are the assholes we turn to for help on matters of right and wrong.

But I cannot say I am easy with Ms Proudman’s behaviour either. I understand she is 27 years old, but in her chosen profession I would have expected her to be a bit more savvy about not only what the reaction to this would be ( and I deeply suspect she was very aware) but that lamenting about sexism in the legal profession is an incredibly narrow view of a very serious issue affecting all of society. Just ask some of the girls suffering FGM, or the ones who can’t choose who, never mind if, they want to marry, about sexual inequality and misogynistic attitudes.

I have had my (un)fair share of sexist shit throughout my life, like every other woman I know, and I would love that my daughters did not have to endure the same, but, too late. I know they have and will continue to do so for a long time.

There is a lot of really great work going on to promote sexual equality, but this public and political grandstanding does none of us any favours.

I have answered my own question. These people represent our legal profession. Lady Justice may not wear a blindfold in her post atop the Old Bailey, but some of those inside certainly seem to.

So Justice Lowell Goddard has taken her seat at the “Inquiry Into Child Sex Abuse”,(CSA Inquiry) and at long last. Although there will be annual interim reports they do not expect to finish before 2020. The details, the reports, the appointments, it goes on and on; it is a huge undertaking, but if it results in a system that ensures the protection of our children, then so be it.

If.

But what happens now? What happens in the meantime?

This must all seem pie-in-the-sky to the kids suffering at the hands of abusers right now, with no sign of a safe haven. Charities try to pick up the slack, but when you bear in mind that out of approximately 4500 calls made to ChildLine every day only 2500 get answered due to lack of funding, then surely the government owes it to our children to pick up the tab for the shortfall.

Can we stand by and allow a child, who has worked up the courage to call for help, to go unheard? Isn’t that the most basic ask of anyone wronged; to be heard?

I am not trying to detract from the need for or the potential of this CSA Inquiry, but 2020 is a long way away for too many.

I have just finished reading an article from The Independent regarding the reduction in sentence of the convicted abuser of a six year old boy, from six years to thirty-eight months. To be honest I had to read it twice as I thought I must be making a mistake; but no!

These two judges reckon this SIX YEAR OLD BOY was “making a precocious choice of his sexuality” and therefore the abuser’s behaviour could NOT be considered, in legal terms, “gravely outrageous”.

WTF!

Apologies to James Rush from The Independent for lifting so much straight from his article, but I am still going back and re-reading it to make sure.

Oh, and another brilliant nugget from these two “Judges” (I’ll use that term for the moment); one of them has claimed in a radio interview that, prior to the childs molestation by the convicted abuser, the boy had been subjected to,

“the initiation by his father into the worst of worlds, leading him to deprivation.” ( From interview with Judge Horacio Piombo )

Is this how far we have come in protecting our children from sexual predators? Are we as a society going to allow an adult to claim that a child is in any way to blame for the abuse they have suffered?

This case took place in Argentina, but as we all know, this lack of justice for children is a world-wide issue and no country can wag its judgemental finger at another.

In an era where we examine whether children are fatter than they should be, how they have so much more “stuff” than is good for them, it would surely behold us to make sure they are safer than ever before from the vile attentions of perverts and, if the worst does happen to them, that they are heard and then shielded from further harm.

Activist groups in Argentina are rightly outraged and are calling for the removal of both judges from the bench.

However, we desperately need to understand how any interpretation of law anywhere allows a six year old child to be portrayed as the villain.